© 1995 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
research-article |
Patch assessment in foraging flocks of European starlings: evidence for the use of public information
Department of Biology, Concordia University 1455 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, Québec H3G 1M8, Canada
J. J. Templeton, who is now at the School of Biological Sciences, Manter Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0118, USA.
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was carried out to determine whether group-foraging starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) use public information to help them estimate the quality of an artificial resource patch and depart accordingly. Three kinds of information are potentially available in a group: patch-sample information, pre-harvest information, and public information. These three types of information can be combined into four patch assessment strategies: (1) patch-sample alone; (2) patch-sample and pre-harvest; (3) patch-sample and public; and (4) patch-sample, pre-harvest, and public. Depending on the foraging environment we presented to the starlings, each assessment strategy made a unique set of predictions concerning the patch departure decisions of pairs of birds based on differences in their foraging success. The environment was manipulated in two ways: by altering the variability in patch quality and by changing compatibility, the ease with which individual birds could simultaneously acquire both patch-sample and public information. Our observations on patch persistence and departure order demonstrate that the starlings used a combination of patch-sample and public information, but not pre-harvest information, to estimate the quality of the experimental patch. Moreover, our results suggest that starlings use public information only when it is easily available and ignore it under incompatible conditions. This study provides the first evidence of public information use in a patch assessment problem.
Key words: group foraging, patch assessment, patch departure, personal information, public information, Sturnus vulgaris. [Behav Ecol 6:65–72 (1995)].
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. W. Clark Public information for solitary foragers: timber rattlesnakes use conspecific chemical cues to select ambush sites Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2007; 18(2): 487 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Ruxton, C. Fraser, and M. Broom An evolutionarily stable joining policy for group foragers Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2005; 16(5): 856 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Danchin, L.-A. Giraldeau, T. J. Valone, and R. H. Wagner Public Information: From Nosy Neighbors to Cultural Evolution Science, July 23, 2004; 305(5683): 487 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Fernandez-Juricic, S. Siller, and A. Kacelnik Flock density, social foraging, and scanning: an experiment with starlings Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2004; 15(3): 371 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Kendal, I. Coolen, and K. N. Laland The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 269 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. D. Smith, G. D. Ruxton, and W. Cresswell Dominance and feeding interference in small groups of blackbirds Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2001; 12(4): 475 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Powell and L. L. Frasch Can nest predation and predator type explain variation in dispersal of adult birds during the breeding season ? Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2000; 11(4): 437 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Smith, C. W. Benkman, and K. Coffey The use and misuse of public information by foraging red crossbills Behav. Ecol., January 1, 1999; 10(1): 54 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|